This election has been the most divisive in recent memory, and that's saying a lot. As such, when it's all said and done, there's going to be a lot of
polarization and left over hostility. And I want nothing to do with any of that personally. So this is my "story" and I'm sticking to it:

No matter how much I may disagree with anyone on an individual or collective basis ideologically, politically, or otherwise, I refuse to hate, vilify,
dehumanize, or throw out with the bath water anyone on that basis. I respect everyone's opinions, consciences, choices, and beliefs, no matter how
much I may disagree with them. I wish everyone peace, fulfillment, happiness, and safety, no matter how much I see reality through a lens different
than their own (which we all do, ultimately.)

And I don't want, after this election is over, anyone to see me as their adversary or enemy or part of "the other side." I refuse to do that. I'm not
voting for either of them, so maybe that makes it a little overly convenient for me to say that compared to someone firmly in either camp, and I get
that. But I still think it needs to be said more often regardless, because this election cycle has just been downright vicious. And I have not and
will not do that.

So whatever "basket" people get labeled as being in, no matter how profoundly or passionately I may disagree with them or how conscientiously
aggrieved about any position or words espoused by anyone in either camp and everything in between I may personally feel... you're still fellow human
beings and citizens to me, for better or worse. There is never going to come a day when one side "wins" and the other is just cast off into limbo or
breaks away into their own state. We all have to live together in the end.

I have to draw the line, within myself if nothing else, in all of this division and labeling. I have to hold a place for the possibility of
reconciliation after all this is over, within myself even if few people or no one else joins me there.

I don't think I have twisted her words. They're the same they have been since she uttered them. If you want your debate the exact words she chose,
that's going to be one short debate!

I'm talking about what she meant.

when acting in the capacity of a moderator.

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

You should realize that moderators are strictly forbidden to act in an official capacity in threads where they are participating. That's why we
have the little box you see around this response... to remind other members of that. Even if we don't specifically use the box, the policy is still in
effect.

Also, I append my signature when discussing staff business with "ATS Moderator/Member."

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

As far as winwords comment goes. It seems like it's YOU who are insisting that All Trump Supporters are the same and therefore Deplorable. Not
Winword.

The posts are there for all to read. Windword specifically stated that he felt anyone who supported Trump's statement under discussion, which I have
already proven to be factually correct, was deplorable. Those were his words, not mine.

I see. So you're saying "What she said isn't what she meant." So that is the game we're playing now???

You see the thing about that is that we Know what she said. It's right there in black and white and we can read it for ourselves. However, if we
assume she didn't mean what she said then it's really going to be anyone's guess at that point isn't it??

Only she truly knows what she meant. So while you try and twist what she said into something else, that's not exactly very honest. If she didn't
mean what she said, you'll never know what she meant. You can't read her mind. You can only guess and your guess is as good as any.

Yet, since we don't know that she didn't mean what she said, why not assume she meant exactly what she said???

As a Trump supporter I guess it's just a force of habit. After all, every time Trump says something stupid publicly there is no shortage of people
trying to help others figure out what he meant rather than what he said. I personally don't bother with such guess work or trying to figure things
out that I'll never know for sure. I'd rather just take someone at their word. Cuts through a lot of BS that way. If you don't say what you mean
and mean what you say then what's the point in talking to that person??? I'm not here to try and figure out riddles or take hints from what people
say. If they say it I figure they mean it. If not, they're full of sh*t and I don't have time for them.

I see. So you're saying "What she said isn't what she meant." So that is the game we're playing now???

No, I believe she intended a meaning in addition to the words she chose, not a meaning different to them.

I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. She stated that half of Trump supporters are deplorable. Even if I accept that 'half' is an
approximation, which I do, she still called a goodly percentage of American citizens deplorable. She also said deplorable included those associated
with PC terms: racist, xenophobe, sexist, homophobe, etc. These terms have been loosely applied to people in order to try and silence real debate for
years.

If not for those loose applications, if the terms were used in a strict sense, that wouldn't be an issue for me. But we both know (although I suspect
only one of us will admit) that the terms are simply labels with negative connotations used to degrade, dehumanize, and punish opponents. Combined
with the myriad of instances where individuals have had their property taken, their name destroyed, and their livelihood confiscated, this loose
association has become a powerful weapon to use against opponents.

Deplorable used in the same context with the PC labels, becomes itself a PC label. But unlike the others, which require some semblance of an
accusation at least, deplorable has no specific ideals or actions associated with it. If one wishes to brand their opponent a racist, they need to
make an accusation of some sort of racial indicator, even if that accusation is completely fictitious and irrelevant. To accuse someone of being
deplorable, they need no more indicators than they support Trump.

It's wordplay and manipulation at it's finest. The tactic has worked well in the past, but this time people are wise to it. This time people
understand that this tactic is dangerous to them and their way of life. And people are standing up and saying "no more!"

That's why Clinton backpeddled when she realized the uproar her attempts to demonize people more effectively had backfired. Yes, she regrets saying
what she said, but not because she thinks it was wrong. She regrets saying it because it backfired badly. And she knows that her regret us not enough,
because her supporters will continue to try and demonize others with those words just as she knew they would.

You can argue this all you want. I will never, ever stop calling it what it is: a slur against all Americans and a direct attack on freedom of speech.
I sat on the sidelines too long before and thus complicently allowed labels you be used against fellow citizens because I didn't think they were
talking about me.

Never once did I expect to find myself in the same (oh lord) basket of deplorables as with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, David
Duke, the KKK, The New Black Panther party, Pepe, and by extension, a whole host of other unsavory individuals. I am suspicious of anything these
people have ever done, especially that Pepe, who appears to be no more than a crudely drawn frog. But guilt by association has been a popular tool of
politicians this campaign season, and propagandists in general, that I am not in the least bit surprised to find myself on the receiving end of it.

Upon asking anyone who agrees with the guilt by association employed by the (good god) basket of deplorables comment to compile a simple list
of these bigots, racists, white supremacists and sexists—or even to point them out—I imagine their lists would be as tiny as their reason, or at
least in inverse proportion to their susceptibility to Clinton’s sophistry.

To those who accept sweepingly broad claims as facts and not as linguistic conveniences, Hilary was at least lenient enough to remind them of her
gross generalizations. Still, as evidenced by the indiscriminate violence, hatred and indignation against Trump and his supporters this political
season, they are nonetheless so inured to group think and tribalism, that the gross and hasty generalization was convincing enough to maintain the
fallacy.

[...]

These are tribalistic times. It makes you wonder what Orwell might say this political season, but I have a good idea. “Do remember that dishonesty
and cowardice always have to be paid for. Don’t imagine that for years on end you can make yourself the boot-licking propagandist of the Soviet
régime, or any other régime, and then suddenly return to mental decency. Once a whore, always a whore.“ In the end, we will find out who is
irredeemable.

Thank you for reading.

LesMis

I edited the quote to prevent a wall of text.

Technically, I suppose, Clinton used poor logic, but pointed it out, which is rather counter intuitive to how logical fallacies operate. You don't
point out your own logical fallacy in order to make or win an argument. I am seeing that Clinton was not "being lenient" as you say, but completely
defusing the idea of the Association fallacy. Further, she supports her position by saying that the rest are "hard working Americans" and are not
deserving of the "deplorable" label.

Now, one could argue that there was intent to create an accepted association fallacy among voting democrats in regards to Trump supporters; an
argument that is as unwinnable as claiming that half of Trump supporters are deplorable.

As to your reaction and the reaction of other Trump supporters here, please familiarize yourselves with the No True Scotsman fallacy, and all logical
fallacies for that matter. As you pointed out: " Sometimes, irony is as easy as that."

No, I believe she intended a meaning in addition to the words she chose, not a meaning different to them.

But you're still adding something that was never said. Whether you're changing the meaning or adding something of your own it's still YOU who are
changing it. That's dishonest. Do you enjoy it when someone changes or adds other meanings to the things you say??? Or would you rather they take
what you said to mean what you said???

News flash, Xenophobes, Homophobes, sexists, etc. are Deplorable. That was who she was talking about and they deserve the label of Deplorable whether
they are also Trump Supporters or not. The label fits them.

She wasn't saying that to mean also anyone who's been incorrectly labeled one of those things by mistake or out of malice. If someone is mislabeled a
Racist or Sexist or whatever when they aren't then they aren't included with that.

I don't know why you insist on adding more that what is being said. Or why you insist that you're included within the Group of Deplorables when that
isn't what is being said either. But you seem to have reasoned your way into it by insisting that you Know what Hillary really meant even you
couldn't possibly know that.

You're simply not allowing her own words to mean what they say. In doing so you've included yourself with the Deplorables all by yourself. Well,
congrats on that one my friend. It seems to me you just want to find a reason to be mad about something that doesn't involve you. But then again,
maybe it does involve you since you keep insisting that you're one of them.

Well, ok. Have it your way. Include yourself within the group of deplorables then if you want. Being that you refuse to have it any other way, go
for it. You want to be in that group so bad, fine. But understand that is by your own choice and nobody else made it for you.

She wasn't saying that to mean also anyone who's been incorrectly labeled one of those things by mistake or out of malice. If someone is
mislabeled a Racist or Sexist or whatever when they aren't then they aren't included with that.

Who determines whether the label is deserved or not? In my experience, it's the labeler.

"Can you believe this bakery refused to sell a gay couple a wedding cake?!?"
"Well, it is a private business..."
"What? How can you be so homophobic?"
"I'm not. I just think a private business can choose who they serve."
"Only a homophobe would say that!"

These conversations happen every day. They happen to all kinds of people, in every community in every state. They all come out the same way: someone
is labeled wrongly, then others take up the chant. It's mob rule. If you can't even acknowledge that superfluous labeling is an issue, then there is
no way you can even comprehend my posts.

But others can, and they will. And Hillary Clinton will lose badly. The PC movement will die. And there's nothing you or anyone else can do to stop
it. I won't stop opposing the horrors unleashed on this society by Clinton and those like her, and neither will others.

Yes, there are lot's of labels and opinions being thrown around at everyone. EVERYONE. Nobody gets a pass. We're all victims and we're all
attackers as well. Sometimes the labels are incorrect. Sometimes they are correct. Clinton doesn't own this. Obama didn't start it. Trump didn't
create it. Sometimes they all continue it though and sometimes they act to stop it. Just like we all do. That's life. But you know whether the
labels on you fit or not. Or at least you should. Don't accept the ones that don't fit and come to terms with the ones that do.

If you don't like the labels you get which do fit correctly then change them. If you get labeled incorrectly, then correct them as best you can.
Past that there isn't much you can do about it.

But twisting words or making up additional meanings for what others say which puts words in their mouth isn't going to help. You don't like it when
people do it with the things you say so I don't think you should be doing it to what others say. Sometimes life isn't fair. It's happens to
everyone. All you can do is to try your best and what will be will be.

Society has (for the most part) decided together that racial slurs are deplorable. You may believe they're only descriptive ketsuko - but most of us
see them as something else

Like it or not that's what a slur is. It is descriptive of a person's ethnicity. Yes, it is descriptive of ethnicity in a bad way, but when a person
uses a slur, you know what group it is targeted at because it describes that group.

It doesn't have be factual. It doesn't have to be true. It doesn't have to be positive.

We have plenty of words in the language that are used in non-factual, untrue, and negative ways that are still used descriptively all the time. Slurs
are just one example of such.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Let me try again; you've earned it: do you believe our society would be better off without incorrect labeling?

TheRedneck

Of course. But some things in the world you cannot change. You can only change yourself from contributing to them.

But like I was saying. Her comment wasn't incorrectly labeling anyone. She was calling Actual Racists and Actual Xenophobes, Deplorable. She wasn't
addressing those who are incorrectly labeled as such. I don't know why you are assuming she meant people who are incorrectly labeled as something
should be treated the same as those who are correctly labeled. Why would anyone suggest such a thing??? Someone who is a Rapist isn't the same as
someone who's been incorrectly labeled a Rapist and I don't think anyone thinks they should be treated the same or classified the same.

Do you think using specious labels to bring financial harm to your opponent promotes freedom of speech?

You should ask Trump that same question

Would you stand up for your opinion if you knew doing so could cost you your job or property?

Yes - I would

Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you anything but the freedom to say what you mean to say. The freedom to protest. The freedom to not have to say
the pledge of allegiance is you've lost faith in your country. The freedom to call a tyrant a tyrant. That's freedom. It doesn't promise any of us
that there will be no consequences. What kind of candy ass demands a promise that protects his right to say what he wants to say unopposed?

The labels are a means to an end. That end is total unopposed domination.

It's lucky we're only duking this out with words then - and not guns. Starting to sound a little Wrath of Khanish in here

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Let me try again; you've earned it: do you believe our society would be better off without incorrect labeling?

TheRedneck

Of course. But some things in the world you cannot change. You can only change yourself from contributing to them.

But like I was saying. Her comment wasn't incorrectly labeling anyone. She was calling Actual Racists and Actual Xenophobes, Deplorable. She wasn't
addressing those who are incorrectly labeled as such. I don't know why you are assuming she meant people who are incorrectly labeled as something
should be treated the same as those who are correctly labeled. Why would anyone suggest such a thing??? Someone who is a Rapist isn't the same as
someone who's been incorrectly labeled a Rapist and I don't think anyone thinks they should be treated the same or classified the same.

And she went on to say that half of all the people who will vote for Trump are actually those types of people. How does she know that? How do
you know that?

Thing is that she put a definite quantifier on it. She didn't just make vague suggestions that those people are attracted to what Trump is promoting,
and there are reasons to like what Trump promotes without being any of those things. Nope, she put an amount on there so that every person at a Trump
rally can look at his or her neighbor and think, "That person must be either a racist, a bigot, or a homophobe or maybe more than one of those. Or I
must be because at least half the people in this room are according to Hillary." And then you look at the polls and now think that one quarter of all
the people voting belong to one of those types of people so now one in four when you go to the voting box ... or one in four Americans roughly is that
way.

She said it was a "Grossly Generalized" guess of 50%. Not exactly or even approx. calculation. But you know what. 1 in 4 people in America is
probably pretty damn close. 25% of people in this nation most likely would qualify as Racist, or Sexist, or a Religious Bigot, or Xenophobic.

Yeah, I'd say 25% is maybe a little low in fact that 1 in 4 would qualify for one or more of those characteristics. Not all of them, but at least one
of them, yes.

Just look at the number of Racist organizations, Sexist Websites and members, etc. Yes, those characteristics are still very much alive and well in
this country. People hating on Homosexuals, Hating on Immigrants, Hating on others Race, Economic Status. You name it. People in this country are
Bigots much of the time. At least 25% of them, no doubt.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.